Apple's infringement of two S3 Graphics patents is limited to certain Macs, …

More information about an ITC ruling that Apple infringed on two of S3 Graphics' patents has been released, revealing that Mac OS X—and not Apple's iOS devices—has been deemed infringing. That small, indirect victory may not be much help for HTC, which now owns S3 Graphics, however—the patents in question were recently ruled invalid by the United States Patent and Trademark office.

S3 Graphics lodged a patent infringement claim against Apple in May of last year, arguing to the ITC that iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and Macs all infringed on four of its graphics processing-related patents. Apple requested that the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) reexamine those patents and have them ruled invalid due to the existence of prior art. Just one month before the ITC's July 1 ruling, the USPTO made an initial determination that two of S3's patents were indeed invalid. Unsurprisingly, the ITC ruled that Apple's products did not infringe on those two patents.

However, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the case ruled that Apple's products did infringe on some claims of the other two patents in question. Not all the information about that ruling was released on July 1, though, because Apple and HTC had yet to decide what sensitive information contained in the full ruling would need to be redacted before being released to the public. On Tuesday, as noted by Bloomberg, the ITC released the conclusions of law determined by the ALJ that computers running Mac OS X, and not mobile devices like the iPhone, infringed on the two remaining patents in question. That information was released at Apple's request.

HTC, which already owned a significant interest in S3, acquired the company just days after the ITC's July 1 ruling against Apple. It was widely speculated that HTC acquired S3 to gain a strategic advantage in its ongoing and wide-ranging legal fight with Apple over smartphone-related patents. It's clear that the new information released this week doesn't offer HTC much leverage against Apple's mobile devices, which account for nearly three-quarters of the company's revenue, though it could give HTC some indirect leverage as Macs still account for 18 percent of Apple's income. Even then, the infringement claim would only pertain to Mac models that rely exclusively on Intel integrated graphics.

Even that small leverage may turn out to be nothing at all. Litigating Apple noted that on the very same day that an ALJ ruled that Apple infringed two of S3's patents, the USPTO made initial determinations that the relevant claims of the two remaining patents are also invalid due to prior art. Apple can ask the ITC to review the infringement decision in light of the USPTO's invalidation of those patent claims as ipso facto an invalid patent claim cannot be infringed.

This could leave HTC, which recently claimed to be ready and willing to negotiate with Apple, at a serious disadvantage. Apple already has an initial win on its side, as the ITC ruled that HTC's smartphones infringe on two of Apple's patents. Apple also has a second complaint lodged with the ITC covering newer HTC products like its Android-based Flyer tablet, as well as multiple federal patent infringement suits in US District Court.

If HTC has even one patent that a major piece of Apple's business infringes, it may be important leverage to them. If HTC chooses not to license that patent to Apple, it would mean that Apple could not market a significant product. Presumably Apple does not want to stop selling MACs. That response would be an appropriate one by HTC to an Apple attempt to eliminate HTC as a participant in the smart phone business.

If HTC has even one patent that a major piece of Apple's business infringes, it may be important leverage to them. If HTC chooses not to license that patent to Apple, it would mean that Apple could not market a significant product. Presumably Apple does not want to stop selling MACs. That response would be an appropriate one by HTC to an Apple attempt to eliminate HTC as a participant in the smart phone business.

I'm not sure if your capitalization of Mac is a slip of the hand, ignorance, or condescension.

Just for reference, "Mac" has a very different meaning than "MAC" when speaking IT.

If HTC has even one patent that a major piece of Apple's business infringes, it may be important leverage to them. If HTC chooses not to license that patent to Apple, it would mean that Apple could not market a significant product. Presumably Apple does not want to stop selling MACs. That response would be an appropriate one by HTC to an Apple attempt to eliminate HTC as a participant in the smart phone business.

I'm not sure if you're capitalization of Mac is a slip of the hand, ignorance, or condescension.

Just for reference, "Mac" has a very different meaning than "MAC" when speaking IT.

So when will Apple's patent on a grid of icons be invalidated due to prior art (Windows 3.1)?

Which patent is that? I'm pretty sure there is no such patent. I think you're confused about IP terminology.

Prior art doesn't have to be patented, it only has to exist and be known to the community before the patent application is filed. Additionally, the specific claims in a patent are what matter relating to prior art or infringement.

An interesting exercise (which I haven't done) is locate the patent, and evaluate whether or not something as ovbious as Windows 3.1 fully matches the claims in the patent...

So when will Apple's patent on a grid of icons be invalidated due to prior art (Windows 3.1)?

As already mentioned, it isn't a patent. Not mentioned is that it's trade dress. So LMFTFY:

So when will Apple's trade dress on a specific grid of icons on a black background in a 4x5 pattern with a gray gradient along a fixed set of 4x1 icons along the bottom on a black flat glass slab with a metal ring trim and a rectangular lozenge for the speaker and a white hollow square button on the bottom is invalidated due to a prior phone that looks like that?

So when will Apple's patent on a grid of icons be invalidated due to prior art (Windows 3.1)?

Which patent is that? I'm pretty sure there is no such patent. I think you're confused about IP terminology.

Prior art doesn't have to be patented, it only has to exist and be known to the community before the patent application is filed. Additionally, the specific claims in a patent are what matter relating to prior art or infringement.

An interesting exercise (which I haven't done) is locate the patent, and evaluate whether or not something as ovbious as Windows 3.1 fully matches the claims in the patent...

You're missing NickN's point. Apple doesn't have a patent on "a grid of icons" for HTC to seek to invalidate.

The grid of icons is but a part of a trade dress application, which is not the same thing as a patent. Thus the comment on iamaelephant being confused about IP terminology.

[fanboi] Well, from Apple's side, they feel that they create very unique and innovative products that become very successful and then other companies copy them. That's why they sue. Apple makes their money selling unique products. Some companies make money licensing patents, or suing for damages.[/fanboi]

All these ridiculous squabbles over retarded and broad patents just scream to me that these people don't want to let the consumers decide what they like. Why compete when you can just block a competitor's products from being imported?

All these ridiculous squabbles over retarded and broad patents just scream to me that these people don't want to let the consumers decide what they like. Why compete when you can just block a competitor's products from being imported?

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Had Schmidt not been on the board I'm fairly certain that Android would be a year behind where they are now.

The grid of icons is but a part of a trade dress application, which is not the same thing as a patent. Thus the comment on iamaelephant being confused about IP terminology.

I think technically what Apple is asserting against Samsung (to bring up that lawsuit once again) are, among other claims, design patents, "a type of industrial design right":

Wikipedia wrote:

Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Trade dress is also at issue, but the thing people keep erroneously complaining about in nearly every thread about Apple's patent-related litigation is a design patent on the specific arrangement and style of icons used in iOS's Springboard. Windows 3.1 does not count as prior art—the design patent is very specific about the particular arrangement, the fact that it's for a handheld device, etc—but it's also worth noting that System 1, i.e. Mac OS version 1, used a "grid of icons" years before Windows 3.1.

The grid of icons is but a part of a trade dress application, which is not the same thing as a patent. Thus the comment on iamaelephant being confused about IP terminology.

I think technically what Apple is asserting against Samsung (to bring up that lawsuit once again) are, among other claims, design patents, "a type of industrial design right":

Wikipedia wrote:

Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Trade dress is also at issue, but the thing people keep erroneously complaining about in nearly every thread about Apple's patent-related litigation is a design patent on the specific arrangement and style of icons used in iOS's Springboard. Windows 3.1 does not count as prior art—the design patent is very specific about the particular arrangement, the fact that it's for a handheld device, etc—but it's also worth noting that System 1, i.e. Mac OS version 1, used a "grid of icons" years before Windows 3.1.

If I see the words 'patent on a grid of icons' and 'windows 3.1' again in the same sentence, I think I'll scream; and not just because there were grids of icons (from Apple and Microsoft) before Windows 3.1.

Perhaps Ars could do a feature on the differences between different types of IP. It's getting really boring/annoying seeing the same re-hashed debates about lawsuits where no one seems to understand the difference between all the different types of intellectual property.

I can't be the only one who fails to see the difference between the 2 blues.

If you have to use a white dotted line to separate them you should of used different colors...

There is no difference. I suppose the intent was to show the extent that 'Macs' are responsible for Apple income.

Precisely. Apple breaks this number out separately, and though it is not specifically relevant to this particular discussion, it seemed worth highlighting the fact that Apple sells 2 laptops for every desktop it sells when I originally made the chart.

As a side note, Apple said during its most recent earnings call that "over half" of iPod sales are iPod touches, so I included ~5% from the 10% total for iPod + iTunes—47 + 21 + 5 = 73%, or approximately three-quarters.

Trade dress is also at issue, but the thing people keep erroneously complaining about in nearly every thread about Apple's patent-related litigation is a design patent on the specific arrangement and style of icons used in iOS's Springboard. Windows 3.1 does not count as prior art—the design patent is very specific about the particular arrangement, the fact that it's for a handheld device, etc—but it's also worth noting that System 1, i.e. Mac OS version 1, used a "grid of icons" years before Windows 3.1.

I thought that the bulk of their lawsuit against Samsung was trade dress complaints, with a couple of utility patents included. IIRC, they are also suing Samsung for copying the packaging of the iPhone which I believe is a trade dress complaint. No matter, the important part is that the grid of icons is not a utility patent.

Fotek wrote:

Perhaps Ars could do a feature on the differences between different types of IP. It's getting really boring/annoying seeing the same re-hashed debates about lawsuits where no one seems to understand the difference between all the different types of intellectual property.

++

I'd appreciate it if an article that covered the finer points of IP were published. It couldn't be more timely either.

Perhaps Ars could do a feature on the differences between different types of IP. It's getting really boring/annoying seeing the same re-hashed debates about lawsuits where no one seems to understand the difference between all the different types of intellectual property.

I'd appreciate it if an article that covered the finer points of IP were published. It couldn't be more timely either.

All these ridiculous squabbles over retarded and broad patents just scream to me that these people don't want to let the consumers decide what they like. Why compete when you can just block a competitor's products from being imported?

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Had Schmidt not been on the board I'm fairly certain that Android would be a year behind where they are now.

I honestly can't fathom why HTC using Android would be considered unfair. Its the very nature of Android to be used on a plethora of systems to be customized to preference of the manufacturor. I can possibly understand the insider knowledge stance but the general feel of Android is so different from iOS that, to me, it's a moot point, and I don't think Android would be doing much worse without Schmidt's knowledge. They did pretty damn well with their BOGO saturation campaign.

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Had Schmidt not been on the board I'm fairly certain that Android would be a year behind where they are now.

This one again.

Google had already acquired Android prior to Schmidt joining the board, and both he and Apple acknowledge the fact that he recused himself from board meetings prior to any discussion of the iPhone. Apple's announcement when he resigned his position even stated that as Google and Apple compete more and more in the mobile space, he would be forced to recuse himself from such a large part of discussion concerning Apple's business, that his role on the board would be mostly useless. (I'm paraphrasing that last point)

If Eric Schmidt had appropriated IP as a director with Apple and leveraged it for Google, Steve Jobs wouldn't be reduced to patent trolling Android manufacturers, he'd have a clear case to go right after Schmidt and Google, though he would probably be standing in line behind the SEC.

All these ridiculous squabbles over retarded and broad patents just scream to me that these people don't want to let the consumers decide what they like. Why compete when you can just block a competitor's products from being imported?

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Because there's a gray area where it is (in Apple's view) that HTC isn't competing fairly because they're using Android instead of writing their own OS, and Android isn't competing fairly because they had inside knowledge thanks to Schmidt being on Apple's board and with access to an early preproduction iPhone in 2007.

Had Schmidt not been on the board I'm fairly certain that Android would be a year behind where they are now.

This one again.

Google had already acquired Android prior to Schmidt joining the board, and both he and Apple acknowledge the fact that he recused himself from board meetings prior to any discussion of the iPhone. Apple's announcement when he resigned his position even stated that as Google and Apple compete more and more in the mobile space, he would be forced to recuse himself from such a large part of discussion concerning Apple's business, that his role on the board would be mostly useless. (I'm paraphrasing that last point)

If Eric Schmidt had appropriated IP as a director with Apple and leveraged it for Google, Steve Jobs wouldn't be reduced to patent trolling Android manufacturers, he'd have a clear case to go right after Schmidt and Google, though he would probably be standing in line behind the SEC.

June 18th has Schmidt demonstrating his iPhone, 9 days before general release.

Schmidt was on stage in January 2007 when the iPhone was unveiled. He had knowledge of the iPhone at least the week before while rehearsals for the unveiling occurred. He joined the board only a scant five months earlier, and you're claiming he his early access, even if by a couple weeks, in advance of the world wouldn't affect Android's development?

2007 Android looked like a Treo or Blackberry.2008 Android was a full touchscreen.

Imagine if they had started moving from one to the other not in January of 2007, but in June of 2007? What if they couldn't know how the phone worked because they wouldn't have it in their hands, or access to it, in any manner, until buying one six months after the January unveiling?

Instead of the Dream in late 2008 it might have been early 2009. Instead of the Droid in late 2009 it might have been early 2010. Instead of Android 2.3 and 3.1, today, it would be Android 2.2 and the first Android tablets wouldn't have been ready until later this quarter or early next year. WP7 would have faced off squarely against 2.1 instead of 2.3!